To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

5920
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
April 19
the 21 American Republics that disputes
between them should be settlem amicably,
and without endangering the security
or well-being of other nations in the
community. It is a model that some of the
governments of the Old World might well
adopt. Indeed, in a sense they have
done so, for many of the principles
embodied in the United Nations Charter
were based on concepts developed
within the inter-American system.
In another field entirely, Members
of the Senate will recall, I am sure, the
quick and effective assistance which was
rendered by our Government to Mexico
and Honduras when parts of those
countries were damaged by floods. More
recently, during the past month in fact,
we have helped to provide medication
and equipment to Argentina, to help her
people cope with a severe epidemic of
polio.
It is perhaps not so well known, but
should be equally recorded here, that
when floods and hurricanes damaged
parts of our own Northeast in 1955,
contributions were made by us to several
of the Latin American Republics.
Meanwhile, our own Government has
continued to give expression to the policy
of inter-American cooperation through
its programs of technical assistance, and
cultural exchanges, as well as through
negotiations of specialized agreements
in many fields, such as those providing
for the joint development of peaceful
uses of atomic energy.
All this of course does not mean that
our relations with our sister Republics
are perfect. There are from time to
time subjects on which we disagree
heartily and emphatically. We realize,
for example, that while great progress
has been made in recent years in the
development of representative government
in Latin America, there is still room for
improvement. However, it must also be
said in justice that from the Latin point
of view, some of our policies also often
may seem less than ideal, perhaps
including some in the field of economic
affairs. But such disagreements are
common among good neighbors, and
quite possibly further help to lend
strength and vitality to our friendship.
After all, it would be a sterile partnership
which did not occasionally have its
disagreements.
While it is proper and constructive to
acknowledge such areas of difference, I
believe the important thing to bear in
mind on Pan American Day is the spirit
of unity and progress which makes the
inter-American system work—and which
was reflected so magnificently in
the personality of Cordell Hull.
Consider for example the inspiration
it must provide to the captive peoples of
the Communist satellites to look across
the ocean and observe the mutual
respect and consideration with which our
21 Republics, the great and the small,
conduct their business with each other.
They should take hope for their own
future freedom from the spectacle of so
many nations, so different in language,
background, economic development, and
military strength, sitting at the common
council table to resolve their differences
in harmony and work out their indi-
vidual destinies with due regard for the
rights of their neighbors. It proves that
such relations are possible among
nations no less than among individuals.
Therein lies the great hope and faith
which we all express, knowingly or not,
when we celebrate Pan American Day.
THE SOUTH—THE NATION'S NEW
ECONOMIC FRONTIER
Mr. PULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that I may
proceed for 10 minutes, with the same
understanding under which the Senator
from Oregon addressed the Senate. I
just spoke to the acting minority leader,
the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Bricker],
about the request I was about to make.
Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, it is
satisfactory to me, so long as we can, as
soon as possible, get to the business at
hand. There are some Senators who
desire to leave as early as possible.
Mr. PULBRIGHT. I may say it will
save time if I make my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Douglas in the chair). Is there
objection to the unanimous consent request?
The Chair hears none, and the Senator
from Arkansas may proceed.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President,
almost 18 years have passed since
President Roosevelt referred to the South as
the Nation's No. 1 economic problem.
Since then, the South has undergone
deep and penetrating changes, as has the
entire Nation. To take stock of the
economic changes in the South, I
instructed the staff of the Senate Banking
and Currency Committee to study the
economic and financial status of the
southeastern region of the United States,
including the area comprised of Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
The study is being conducted with the
cooperation of the Legislative Reference
Service and is now entering its final
stages. It will be presented to the
Senate Committee on Banking and Currency
before the 18th anniversary of the
famous Roosevelt speech on the South.
The preliminary findings of the study
are becoming clear: the South is no
longer the Nation's No. 1 economic
problem; it is now the Nation's new
economic frontier.
The level of economic development in
the South is still considerably behind
that of the rest of the Nation. However,
we no longer view our difficulties
as a national problem, but as a
challenge to ourselves; a challenge to
develop our potentials to reach the national
level of economic development so that
the people of the South may share fully
in the American standard of living.
That is the birthright of every American
from every region of the country—on
the farm and in the city.
LOW INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE SOUTH
The economic well-being of the people
in the South has risen markedly in the
past years, but it still falls below that
enjoyed by the rest of the country.
Possibly the best single measurement of
the economic well-being of a region is'
its per capita income. Measured in
these terms, the average income of
persons outside the South is almost 50
percent higher than in the South—see
table 1.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record, at
the conclusion of my remarks, a number
of tables relating to the substance of
the remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the unanimous-consent
request? Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President,
several factors, some of them rather
complicated, account for these
differences in income. Here are just a few
of them.
First. Farming is relatively more
important in the South than it is in the
rest of the country. The proportion of
persons engaged in agriculture is twice
as great in the South as it is in the rest
of the United States. In my own State
of Arkansas, the comparable ratio is
three times as high as in the rest of the
country. This puts us at an economic
disadvantage, since farmworkers earn
less than half of that earned by workers
in nonagricultural occupations.
Second., In thte South, we have
relatively less manufacturing than in the
other sections of the country. More
than I out of 4 workers in the United
States is engaged in manufacturing,
compared with less than 1 out of 5 in
the South. Arkansas, unfortunately, in
this respect lags behind most other
States. In my State, manufacturing
provides jobs for only about 1 out of 7
gainfully employed persons—see table 2.
Third. On the whole the breadwinner
in the South shares his lower income
with more persons than does his
counterpart in other sections of the country.
The birth rate in the South is. higher
than in other regions, and, consequently,
so is the proportion of. dependent
children. Many southerners migrate to
other areas when they get to be of
working age, and are a source of vitality to
growing urban centers throughout the
country. In recent years, the net
out-migration from the South has exceeded
inmigration by about 300,000 a year—see
table 3.
Fourth. The growth of cities and
schools has a direct bearing upon income,
as has the type of industry and
commerce. In all these aspects the South
is below the national average. It has a
higher percentage of rural population
and a higher ratio of workers in the
less-efficient forms of industry and commerce,
while the level of educational achievements
of the southern people is lower.
Fifth. Wages and salaries in the South
are lower. As of 1954, hourly earnings
of manufacturing production workers in
the South averaged $1.36, or only about
three-fourths of the national average.
The South does not have its share of
high-paying industries, such as automobiles,
steel, and rubber. On this basis,
the production worker outside the South
had to work 9 months to get the same
income as the southern worker earned
in a whole year. Nevertheless, since the
end of World War II, the progress of

5920
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
April 19
the 21 American Republics that disputes
between them should be settlem amicably,
and without endangering the security
or well-being of other nations in the
community. It is a model that some of the
governments of the Old World might well
adopt. Indeed, in a sense they have
done so, for many of the principles
embodied in the United Nations Charter
were based on concepts developed
within the inter-American system.
In another field entirely, Members
of the Senate will recall, I am sure, the
quick and effective assistance which was
rendered by our Government to Mexico
and Honduras when parts of those
countries were damaged by floods. More
recently, during the past month in fact,
we have helped to provide medication
and equipment to Argentina, to help her
people cope with a severe epidemic of
polio.
It is perhaps not so well known, but
should be equally recorded here, that
when floods and hurricanes damaged
parts of our own Northeast in 1955,
contributions were made by us to several
of the Latin American Republics.
Meanwhile, our own Government has
continued to give expression to the policy
of inter-American cooperation through
its programs of technical assistance, and
cultural exchanges, as well as through
negotiations of specialized agreements
in many fields, such as those providing
for the joint development of peaceful
uses of atomic energy.
All this of course does not mean that
our relations with our sister Republics
are perfect. There are from time to
time subjects on which we disagree
heartily and emphatically. We realize,
for example, that while great progress
has been made in recent years in the
development of representative government
in Latin America, there is still room for
improvement. However, it must also be
said in justice that from the Latin point
of view, some of our policies also often
may seem less than ideal, perhaps
including some in the field of economic
affairs. But such disagreements are
common among good neighbors, and
quite possibly further help to lend
strength and vitality to our friendship.
After all, it would be a sterile partnership
which did not occasionally have its
disagreements.
While it is proper and constructive to
acknowledge such areas of difference, I
believe the important thing to bear in
mind on Pan American Day is the spirit
of unity and progress which makes the
inter-American system work—and which
was reflected so magnificently in
the personality of Cordell Hull.
Consider for example the inspiration
it must provide to the captive peoples of
the Communist satellites to look across
the ocean and observe the mutual
respect and consideration with which our
21 Republics, the great and the small,
conduct their business with each other.
They should take hope for their own
future freedom from the spectacle of so
many nations, so different in language,
background, economic development, and
military strength, sitting at the common
council table to resolve their differences
in harmony and work out their indi-
vidual destinies with due regard for the
rights of their neighbors. It proves that
such relations are possible among
nations no less than among individuals.
Therein lies the great hope and faith
which we all express, knowingly or not,
when we celebrate Pan American Day.
THE SOUTH—THE NATION'S NEW
ECONOMIC FRONTIER
Mr. PULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that I may
proceed for 10 minutes, with the same
understanding under which the Senator
from Oregon addressed the Senate. I
just spoke to the acting minority leader,
the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Bricker],
about the request I was about to make.
Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, it is
satisfactory to me, so long as we can, as
soon as possible, get to the business at
hand. There are some Senators who
desire to leave as early as possible.
Mr. PULBRIGHT. I may say it will
save time if I make my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Douglas in the chair). Is there
objection to the unanimous consent request?
The Chair hears none, and the Senator
from Arkansas may proceed.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President,
almost 18 years have passed since
President Roosevelt referred to the South as
the Nation's No. 1 economic problem.
Since then, the South has undergone
deep and penetrating changes, as has the
entire Nation. To take stock of the
economic changes in the South, I
instructed the staff of the Senate Banking
and Currency Committee to study the
economic and financial status of the
southeastern region of the United States,
including the area comprised of Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
The study is being conducted with the
cooperation of the Legislative Reference
Service and is now entering its final
stages. It will be presented to the
Senate Committee on Banking and Currency
before the 18th anniversary of the
famous Roosevelt speech on the South.
The preliminary findings of the study
are becoming clear: the South is no
longer the Nation's No. 1 economic
problem; it is now the Nation's new
economic frontier.
The level of economic development in
the South is still considerably behind
that of the rest of the Nation. However,
we no longer view our difficulties
as a national problem, but as a
challenge to ourselves; a challenge to
develop our potentials to reach the national
level of economic development so that
the people of the South may share fully
in the American standard of living.
That is the birthright of every American
from every region of the country—on
the farm and in the city.
LOW INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE SOUTH
The economic well-being of the people
in the South has risen markedly in the
past years, but it still falls below that
enjoyed by the rest of the country.
Possibly the best single measurement of
the economic well-being of a region is'
its per capita income. Measured in
these terms, the average income of
persons outside the South is almost 50
percent higher than in the South—see
table 1.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record, at
the conclusion of my remarks, a number
of tables relating to the substance of
the remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the unanimous-consent
request? Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President,
several factors, some of them rather
complicated, account for these
differences in income. Here are just a few
of them.
First. Farming is relatively more
important in the South than it is in the
rest of the country. The proportion of
persons engaged in agriculture is twice
as great in the South as it is in the rest
of the United States. In my own State
of Arkansas, the comparable ratio is
three times as high as in the rest of the
country. This puts us at an economic
disadvantage, since farmworkers earn
less than half of that earned by workers
in nonagricultural occupations.
Second., In thte South, we have
relatively less manufacturing than in the
other sections of the country. More
than I out of 4 workers in the United
States is engaged in manufacturing,
compared with less than 1 out of 5 in
the South. Arkansas, unfortunately, in
this respect lags behind most other
States. In my State, manufacturing
provides jobs for only about 1 out of 7
gainfully employed persons—see table 2.
Third. On the whole the breadwinner
in the South shares his lower income
with more persons than does his
counterpart in other sections of the country.
The birth rate in the South is. higher
than in other regions, and, consequently,
so is the proportion of. dependent
children. Many southerners migrate to
other areas when they get to be of
working age, and are a source of vitality to
growing urban centers throughout the
country. In recent years, the net
out-migration from the South has exceeded
inmigration by about 300,000 a year—see
table 3.
Fourth. The growth of cities and
schools has a direct bearing upon income,
as has the type of industry and
commerce. In all these aspects the South
is below the national average. It has a
higher percentage of rural population
and a higher ratio of workers in the
less-efficient forms of industry and commerce,
while the level of educational achievements
of the southern people is lower.
Fifth. Wages and salaries in the South
are lower. As of 1954, hourly earnings
of manufacturing production workers in
the South averaged $1.36, or only about
three-fourths of the national average.
The South does not have its share of
high-paying industries, such as automobiles,
steel, and rubber. On this basis,
the production worker outside the South
had to work 9 months to get the same
income as the southern worker earned
in a whole year. Nevertheless, since the
end of World War II, the progress of